File talk:Data, Oh Shit.jpg
Why was a nicely cropped image replaced with one that, well, isn't? --OuroborosCobra talk 03:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC) :No reason. I've reverted it. --From Andoria with Love 03:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC) ::because it wasn't nicely cropped. the cropped version is distorted and doesn't match the size or proportion of most of the other images in its article. this image was clearly uploaded for use as a potd, so i didn't see a problem in making it conform to the original film composition for the aesthetic of the generations article. make sense doesn't it? Deevolution 04:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Not really, it doesn't look the least bit distorted to me, and the new version was uncropped and didn't even have the subject in the center, or near it. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC) ::well, distorted or not, i felt the composition of the original film should have been maintained. aesthetically, it is displeasing to me at least to see the pictures here cropped so willy nilly. excuse the lame expression. Deevolution 04:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC) I guess I don't see how it is "willy nilly". When taking a photograph, you don't center the image off of the subject. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC) ::but when you're filming a movie, sometimes you do. Deevolution 05:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC) We don't have moving pictures on this site. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC) :::oh and by the way, that is the most idiotic response. and yes we do take photos in which the subject is not framed in the exact center of the image, it's called composition and depth. it's sloppy because no thought was given to the shape or proportion of the image when it was cropped. don't say stupid things. really. Deevolution 06:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC) :We crop images here (when necessary) so unnecessary elements are taken out and the viewer focuses on what is important: in this case, Data stating "Oh, shit!" And, no, the image isn't distorted; not that I can see, anyway. --From Andoria with Love 06:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC) ::not that it is at all important anymore, but yes, to me on my computer it is very grainy. and you really don't need to tell me why we crop images, i'm just saying it's sloppy. Deevolution 06:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC) :Now that you say it, it does look a tad grainy on his uniform and in the brighter parts of the background. The grainy look might be enhanced on some screens. By the way, I did consider the shape and proportion of the image when I cropped it, so I don't know why it is the way it is. I don't think it's a major issue, but I'll see about uploading a re-cropped, hopefully grainless version a bit later. --From Andoria with Love 06:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC) :By the way, for future reference, please refrain from remarks like "that is the most idiotic response". That could be taken as a personal attack. --From Andoria with Love 06:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC) ::i disagree, a personal attack would be "you are idiotic" and as i don't know the user, it would be difficult to make that assessment, idiotic responses aside. so, to be clear, "OuroborosCobra" is not idiotic. the moving pictures comment certainly was. Deevolution 06:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC) :Nonetheless, it could be taken as an attack which could cause issues down the road. In addition, there's to consider. So it's best to just avoid those types of remarks altogether. If you wish to further discuss this issue, however, I suggest we do so at my talk page to avoid going further off-topic. ;) --From Andoria with Love 06:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC) ::you're right, it was extremely rude and bad of me. clearly i feel strongly about composition. Deevolution 07:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC) I beg to differ on my comment. We are not putting moving pictures on here, but single images. Those images should follow the rules of photographs more than moving images. Moving images can pick up on changing details and such in a background, but still frames cannot. When showing picture of Data, it doesn't do anything or add anything to have a completely out of focus crewman or something in the background take up most of the image, which is what the last one was doing. We don't have moving pictures here, the same rules don't apply as they do in film making. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC) ::i'm hesitant to keep going as we're moving more into the abstract with this and clearly i'm in the minority. but, i think it would be very difficult to identify clear rules of photographs or photography. certainly there's a difference between still photography and motion picture photography and thus composition, but the subject of an image is not required to be in the exact center of the frame. i would generally trust the filmmakers in their idea of what makes a well composed shot. the point though is less that i miss the out of focus background, but that (again) no thought was given to the shape of the image when it was cropped. it looks sloppy to me and interrupts the flow of the page it is used in. but this is clearly a matter of taste. if it were me and i felt so compelled to crop the image, i would have cropped it into the size and proportion of a pan-and-scan image so that it was the same shape and size as the vast majority of other images on this site. Deevolution 07:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC) :Just to reiterate, thought was given to the shape of the image when I cropped it. Again, I don't know why it turned out somewhat grainy, and again, I'll take another cap and re-crop it. --From Andoria with Love 08:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC) :Well, I uploaded my own screencap (I just remembered the previous screencap came from TrekCore or some other site; I may have still cropped it, though). The problem with this one is that, to me, there appears to be faint lines running across the top and bottom of the image.Or maybe it's just me... I dunno. What do ya'll think? --From Andoria with Love 23:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)